al-milad al-nabawiya

Discussion in 'Bibliography' started by abuabbasmaliki1, Mar 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. muzzammil

    muzzammil Banned

    Brother abu Hasan, you misunderstand me. Shaykh Bin Bayya nor I condemn the mawlid per se, rather what the shaykh said was: 1. Accept this as a difference of opinion and 2. When celebrating, avoid the unlawful. In support of the second point I provided the comments of shaykh al-Alawi al-Maliki and Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani – I did not insinuate they disapproved of the mawlid.

    As for the first point, you appear to dismiss out of hand the legitimate opposition of some ulema. There are two viewpoints: those who in principle accept the mawlid but censure its unlawful activities (the majority of ulema), and those who in principle reject the mawlid although some expressed their empathy with the first view. Ibn Taymiyya was indeed lenient on the mawlid and he said those who participate will be rewarded for their good intentions and sound ijtihad but for him it is a bid‘ah in the technical sense of being repudiated. Likewise Abu Abd Allah ibn al-Hajj describes the virtues of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)’s birth but condemns the mawlid as innovation in his Madkhal ( For al-Shatibi, his view of the mawlid in al-i‘tisam is linked to his definition of bid‘ah as an act used to attain proximity (qurba)/ta‘abbud bihi without precedence. Shaykh Ahmed Sirhindi’s objection lies in the potential the mawlid has in deviating people away from the sunna. These ulema were against the mawlid in principle.

    The difference, as shaykh bin Bayya said, may stem from the difference in understanding the nature of bid‘ah. The majority of fuqaha divided bid‘ah into the five categories (fard, mustahabb, mubah, makruh and haram) and restricted the hadith (all bid'a is dalala) to the last of them, declaring it “am makhsus” (a general statement with specific implications). However a significant minority instead make the distinction between bid‘ah as legal (shar‘i) and bid‘ah as literal (lughwi). The first view stems from Imam al-Shafi‘i’s well-known statement “Bid‘ah are two: praiseworthy and blameworthy. That which agrees with the Sunna is praiseworthy and that which contradicts it is blameworthy” (al-bid‘atu bid‘atan: fa ma wafaqa l-sunnatu fa huwa mahmuda wa ma khalafaha fa huwa madhmuma). The second view stems from Imam Malik’s comment (which al-Shatibi quotes frequently): “Whoever innovates in this nation anything which its salaf did not do, then he has claimed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) has betrayed the message” (man ahdatha fi l-ummati shay’an lam yakun alayhi salafuha fa qad za‘ama anna rasul Allah khana l-risalah). Following the “Shafi‘i” view are Shafi‘is like Imam Nawawi, Abu Shama, al-Suyuti, al-Subki, al-Haythami, al-Asqalani (and others); Hanafis like Ibn Abidin and al-Ayni (and others); Hanbalis like ibn al-Jawzi and Malikis like al-Zurqani and al-Qarafi. Following the “Maliki” view are Hanafis like al-Shamani and Ahmed al-Sirhindi; Malikis like al-Shatibi and Hanbalis like ibn Rajab al-Hanbali and ibn Taymiyya. [hence for example, sayyiduna Umar’s comment “what a magnificent bid‘ah” is taken to be lughwi (linguistic) by the second category and a good bid‘ah by the first category].

    Some believe, like Imam al-Lacknawi, that this is only a semantic difference, and for him the two can easily be reconciled by saying: the five categories fall into the lughwi taxonomy and the “haram” element into the shar‘i category. However, the second view does put more emphasis on finding precedence, while the first view does not so much. Shaykh bin Bayya thinks this may be one primary reason for the dispute, and it should therefore not be made into a major issue.

    edit: Shehu Uthman don Fodio explains the difference of opinion as follows (see below link to ihya al-sunna, p. 107-8):

    If it is said: “If there is something which draws its proof from the shari‘a but it was not utilised by the early community (salaf), is it a sunna or an innovation”, I say Ahmad Zarruq said in his ‘umdat al-murid al-sadiq:

    ‘Malik said “it is an innovation because they did not leave it except for an order for them to do so. They were the most desirous of people for doing good and the most knowledgeable of people concerning the sunna.” This is in accordance with the words of Ibn Mas‘ud, may Allah be pleased with him, when he said to some people doing the remembrance of Allah in a group (jama‘ah) “By Allah you have come with a dark innovation. Do you think you have superseded the Companions of Muhammad in knowledge?” This was mentioned by ibn al-Hajj in al-madkhal so examine that.

    ‘Al-Shafi‘i may Allah be pleased with him said “not everything which does not have its foundation from the shari‘a is to be considered an innovation, even if the early community (salaf) did not do it. Their leaving doing the action could have been for an excuse which existed at that time, or they may have left it for something better. Perhaps if that action had reached them, it would have been utilised. This is because these legal judgements were taken from the shari‘a and verified by it.”

    ‘There is disagreement also concerning that which has not been narrated from the sunna whether it is disapproved or approved, if it is innovation or not. Malik said about that “it is not an innovation?” Al-Shafi‘i said it was approved based upon the following tradition: “What I have passed over then it is an exemption” (ma taraktuhu lakum fa huwa afw). This was mentioned by ibn al-Hajj in the section on the remembrance of Allah. Based upon that, there is disagreement regarding the Qur’anic hizb (which is recited in a circle with one voice), doing dhikr in gathering in a loud voice, and performing the supplication in the same‘i says about that “it is a sunna”; Malik said about that “it is a reprehensible innovation because of the existence of ambiguity (shubhah)”. A mujtahid should not be considered an innovator in the eyes of other mujtahids who have an opposing opinion...’ Here ends what Ahmad Zarruq said.
  2. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    assalamu 'alaykum aH, I have sent you a pm, plz read

  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    it does not, but in our times, invariably it is an indication.

    as for imam fakihani's refusal, imam suyuti wrote a point-by-point rebuttal. and with due respect to imam fakihani, his objections were anyway not logical and he contradicted himself. indeed, the definition of mandub he gives is strange and contradicting early ulama like izzuddin ibn abd'as Salam.

    furthermore, i sense a whiff of deobandi stench from your objections and if you are not careful, you may get kicked out uncermoniously. it is quite likely that you are an innocent bystander who unfortunately chose to sit with a stinking blacksmith by a cesspool. naturally, if the fire did not get you, at least the smoke from his forge and stench from the pool touched you.

    do not sit with deobandis because they lie and insinuate.

    i would like to know which ulama of the first three centuries conducted khatm bukhari which deoband school seems to have no problem.

    i know a tablighi who goes on long trips of tabligh but still when he comes home fights with his wife; and when his mother intervenes, he beats his mother. therefore, going into tabligh is forbidden because they teach you to beat your mothers.

    among other lies circulated is that we sunnis make it a point of aqidah; whereas the truth is that the deobandis try to deflect criticism from their utterly wahabi ideas by crying wolf that sunnis blame them for not celebrating mawlid.

    this is like criticising imam a'azam raDiyallahu anhu for mentioning wiping upon mests in his fiqh al-akbar. is wiping upon mests a point of aqidah? but then, there was a prevalent disease among ahl al-bid'ah who denied it. so he included it to show that though it is not a very important point, but in our times only the ahl al-bid'ah reject it.

    i don't want to comment on modern scholars, [edited, see below] there are scholars like badruddin al-hasani or al-kattani who have no problem with celebrating the mawlid.

    ibn taymiyyah in his iqtida'a sirat al-mustaqim, was lenient on mawlid (but you can be forgiven because you are not capable of your own research; you are just repeating the mendacity of your deobandi friends).

    as for al-fakihani's essay [by the way, it is a short two paragraph fatwa! but those with disease in their hearts try to make it out as if it is a huge big book.] : can you tell me if you have ever seen it? (i DON'T want a 'reference' from suyuti's paper; i know it. the detractors of the mawlid usually take it from suyuti's refutation and try to act as they have seen both works.)

    i will come back to intellectual dishonesty that is the hallmark of heretics including deobandits and wahabi-salafi-anthropomorphists by quoting that which suits them essentially behaving like the yahudi - citing only what fancies their own nafs.

    as for quoting mawlana al-alawi, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. but with deobandi-wahabis, this cannot be expected, as they have do not have any shame.
    hum ko un sey ĥayaa ki hai ummīd
    jo nahiN jaantey ĥayaa kyā hai

    they attempt to bring proof from those very books which refute them! you are deliberately misrepresenting al-alawi as if he disapproved of the mawlid whereas, he wrote a treatise proving its validity. but you are not bothered with that.

    an example of your behavior is of a guest invited in a grand palace who happened to see the host bringing in raw meat. that meat was washed and cleaned (and the residue filth and blood cleaned, removed and thrown away). the host cooked the meat and made very special and tasty biryani, the aroma of which filled the air. even the neighbors are attracted by its smell. this biryani was served to the guest in expensive chinaware; but he hardly bothers about it. he does not eat it [and even if he does it secretly, he does not tell] and goes out in the street yelling at everyone about the residue filth. so what if the meat was washed? so what if it was from halal source? so what if a respectable person prepared a savory dish from it? HOW CAN YOU FORGET THE FILTH? [it so happened that some grand and respectable men mistook that the raw meat was cooked as it is and so refused to partake; but such people in the whole neighborhood can be counted on the fingers of one hand]

    my man! the filth was meant to be removed and once removed, why don't you enjoy the feast?

    epilogue: however, the guest who was apalled at the biryani, goes to a toilet-cleaners home in the neighborhood who also happens to be a kafir; the toilet-cleaner offers him sweets in his unhygenic* home in a soiled plate; this aforementioned guest happily gobbles it down.
    jin ko shirini-e-meelad sey ghin aati hai
    aankh key andhey unheN kawwa khilaa jatey haiN
    *verily, the polytheists are unclean.

    update: i had mistaken shaykh uthman dan fodio with another contemporary scholar; many thanks to wadood for pointing that out. in fact, i had written bin bayyah while comparing with shaykh badr al-hasani and then changed it. and to make amends, i will look up the sirah of shaykh uthman dan fodio.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2009
  4. azizq

    azizq Well-Known Member

  5. muzzammil

    muzzammil Banned

    If I may: does being a sunni rest on celebrating the mawlid? Many reliable ulema disallowed the mawlid, including the Malikis Allama Fakihani in al-mawrid fi l-kalam ala amal al-mawlid, Abu Abd Allah ibn al-Hajj in al-madkhal, al-Shatibi in al-i'tisam and the recent sufi reformer of Nigeria Usman don Fodo (founder of the Sokoto caliphate); the hanafi and eminent Naqshbandi sheikh Ahmed al-Sirhindi in al-maktubat; and the hanbali Ibn Taymiyya in Iqtida al-sirat al-mustaqim.

    Other ulema who allowed it were aware of the erroneous acts it may contain, so ibn Hajar al-Asqalani wrote "As for the origin of the practice of commemorating the Prophet's birth , it is an innovation ( bida'a ) that has not been conveyed to us from any of the pious early muslims of the first three centuries, despite which it has included both features that are praisweorthy and features that are not. If one takes care to include in such a commemoration only things that are praiseworthy and avoids those that are otherwise, it is a praiseworthy innovation, while if ones does not, it is not." And Imam al-Alawi al-Maliki wrote “One of the innovations (bid’a) of the Mawlid is that, it is practiced by some of those who celebrate it by carrying out unlawful activities, being negligent with prayers, involvement in usury and not implementing the outward and inward sunna of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace).”

    Shaykh bin Bayya's advice is to accept the difference of opinion, and not use it as a yardstick to judge other Muslims:
  6. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    we are celebrating the mawlid in this blessed month and in particular on 12th rabi' al-awwal. if it wasn't for alaHazrat; it is possible that many of us today would not have been sunnis and thus wouldn't have celebrated.

    here is what he said about the mawlid.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page